FULL PRODUCT VERSION :
java version "1.5.0_05"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_05-b05)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_05-b05, mixed mode, sharing)

(identical version info on Linux and Windows)

ADDITIONAL OS VERSION INFORMATION :
Linux bl-chem-iumsc23.chem.indiana.edu 2.6.12-1.1381_FC3 #1 Fri Oct 21 03:46:55 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]

A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM :
The compiler wrongly reports incompatible types in some assignments when the left-hand side has a wildcard type and the right-hand side an intersection type arising from a ternary expression. It likewise wrongly rejects enhanced for loop control statements having similar construction. The compiler messages (see below) don't even make sense: how is it that test.Generic<capture of ? extends java.lang.Object&java.io.Serializable&test.Super> is not a subtype of test.Generic<? extends test.Super> ?


STEPS TO FOLLOW TO REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM :
The problem can be reproduced by compiling the provided sample code (below) with javac 1.5.0_05.


EXPECTED VERSUS ACTUAL BEHAVIOR :
EXPECTED -
The code should compile successfully and without warnings.
ACTUAL -
The compiler reported these errors:

test/Test.java:32: incompatible types
found : test.Generic<capture of ? extends java.lang.Object&java.io.Serializable&test.Super>
required: test.Generic<? extends test.Super>
        generic = (flag ? new Generic<Sub3>() : new Generic<Sub4>());
                        ^
test/Test.java:38: incompatible types
found : java.lang.Object&java.io.Serializable&test.Super
required: test.Super
        for (Super sup : (flag ? list3 : list4)) {}
                         ^
2 errors


ERROR MESSAGES/STACK TRACES THAT OCCUR :
As reported above.

REPRODUCIBILITY :
This bug can be reproduced always.

---------- BEGIN SOURCE ----------
/*
 * An example file hilighting a javac (1.5.0_05) bug related to type capture
 * and the ternary operator
 */

package test;

import java.util.List;
import java.io.Serializable;

class Super {}
class Sub1 extends Super {}
class Sub2 extends Super {}
class Sub3 extends Super implements Serializable {}
class Sub4 extends Super implements Serializable {}
class Generic<T> {}

public class Test {

    List<Sub1> list1;
    List<Sub2> list2;
    List<Sub3> list3;
    List<Sub4> list4;

    public void test1(boolean flag) {
        Generic<? extends Super> generic;

        // This works
        generic = (flag ? new Generic<Sub1>() : new Generic<Sub2>());

        // This fails because of (supposed) incompatible types
        generic = (flag ? new Generic<Sub3>() : new Generic<Sub4>());

        // This works
        for (Super sup : (flag ? list1 : list2)) {}

        // This fails because of (supposed) incompatible types
        for (Super sup : (flag ? list3 : list4)) {}
    }

}

---------- END SOURCE ----------

CUSTOMER SUBMITTED WORKAROUND :
An explicit cast can be used to avoid the error, but it still causes javac to emit an "unchecked cast" warning, and should not in any case be necessary.